News

Search and Seizure Quarterly - Summer 2019

9/24/2019 12:18:00 PM

IN THIS ISSUE

         1.   People v. Homer McGregory, 2019 IL APP (1st) 173101, (1st Dist., June 25, 2019) Suppress of Evidence - - AffirmedISSUE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Reasonableness): Did the eight-month period it took to obtain a search warrant following the seizure of the defendant’s computers and equipment render the seizure of those items unreasonable? (Yes).

   2.   People v. Mark D. Williams, 2019 IL App (5th) 180024, (5th Dist., June 25, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Appeal DismissedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Procedure):  Did the People file a timely appeal from the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress? (No).

   3.   People v. Tyran S. Pruitte and Dionnie T. Neal, 2019 IL App (3rd) 180366, (3rd Dist., June 24, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - AffirmedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did the Officer’s complaint for a search warrant provide probable cause to support the issuance of that warrant? (No).

   4.   People v. Maurice Sanders, 2019 IL APP (1st) 160718, (1st Dist., June 20, 2019) Possession of a Controlled Substance - - Affirmed; Case Remanded. ISSUE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Surveillance Location): Did the trial court err in denying this defendant’s motion require the People to reveal the location of the police surveillance in this case?  (No).

   5.   People v. Taryll Musgrave, 2019 IL APP (4th) 170106, (4th Dist., June 10, 2019) Unlawful Possess of a Controlled Substance - - Affirmed. ISSUE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Prolonged Stop): Did the trial court err in denying this defendant’s motion to suppress after the defendant had argued that the People had illegally prolonged his traffic stop?  (No).

   6.   People v. Mark Cassino, 2019 IL App (1st) 181510, (1st Dist., June 7, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and RemandedSEARCH AND SEIZURE (Extended Duration):  Did the police err in investigating the defendant’s car rental agreement during this traffic stop? (Yes).

  7.   People v. Markeese Thomas, 2019 IL App (1st) 170474, (1st Dist., March 19, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and Remanded.   MODIFIED UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING – May 14, 2019.  ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did the police err in placing this defendant under arrest after they saw him possessing a firearm in an apartment building? (No).

   8.   People v. Benjamin C. Bailey, 2019 IL App (3rd) 180396, (3rd Dist., May 6, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - AffirmedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did the Officer have probable cause to arrest this defendant by taking the keys from his car and unlocking the car doors? (No).

   9.   People v. James R. Lambert, 2019 IL App (5th) 180248, (5th Dist., May 2, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and RemandedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Good Faith):  Did Officers from Kentucky act in good faith when they made a stop in Illinois? (Yes).

   10. People v. Jeremiah Paige Rice, 2019 IL App (3rd) 170134, (3rd Dist., April 16, 2019) Denial of a Motion to Suppress - - AffirmedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Reasonable Suspicion):  Was the odor of burnt cannabis sufficient to turn this traffic stop into a drug investigation? (Yes). 

   11. People v. Bob Williams, 2019 IL App (3rd) 160132, (3rd Dist., April 11, 2019) DUI - - AffirmedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Jurisdiction):  Did the Police in this case have the jurisdiction to arrest Williams for DUI? (Yes).

   12. People v. John R. Brandt Jr., 2019 IL App (4th) 180219, (4th Dist., April 2, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and RemandedISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did probable cause justify the issuance of a search warrant for the defendant’s home? (Yes).   

 

CASE ANALYSIS

      1.   People v. Homer McGregory, 2019 IL APP (1st) 173101, (1st Dist., June 25, 2019) Suppress of Evidence - - Affirmed

FACTS:   The People appealed from the trial court's grant of McGregory's motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the eight-month delay between the seizure of his property and the obtention of a search warrant to search the contents of that property rendered the seizure unreasonable.

ISSUE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Reasonableness): Did the eight-month period it took to obtain a search warrant following the seizure of the defendant’s computers and equipment render the seizure of those items unreasonable? (Yes).

FINDING #1:   The eight-month delay between the time the police seized the equipment and secured search warrant was unreasonable, even though the initial seizure was based on probable cause, and even though the defendant did not request the return of the equipment following its seizure. WHY: The length of delay was extraordinary as it exceeded by five months the longest delay in all the cases cited by the parties; during six of the eight months of delay, there was no diligence whatsoever by law enforcement, and, during the seizure, the defendant asked officers to not seize the equipment, thereby showing the defendant's possessory interest in the equipment and the effect its seizure had on that interest.

  

      2.   People v. Mark D. Williams, 2019 IL App (5th) 180024, (5th Dist., June 25, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Appeal Dismissed.  

FACTSWilliams was charged with six counts of unlawful use of weapons by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a)) and one count of possession of a defaced firearm (id. § 24-5(b)). He filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the consent given to the police to search the apartment in which the firearms were discovered was invalid because it was a product of coercion and undue influence by law enforcement. The trial court granted the motion. The People filed a motion to reconsider which the trial court denied. The People then brought this appeal.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Procedure):  Did the People file a timely appeal from the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress? (No).

FINDING:   The People failed to request an extension of time to file their motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order granting the defendant's suppression motion in its motion for specific findings, although the court knew days after the grant of the suppression motion that the People intended to seek reconsideration and the motion for specific findings stated an intention to file a motion for reconsideration. WHY: No separate motion from the People for an extension of time was filed, and there was no discussion of an extension of time at any of the hearings.

      3.   People v. Tyran S. Pruitte and Dionnie T. Neal, 2019 IL App (3rd) 180366, (3rd Dist., June 24, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Affirmed.  

FACTSFollowing the trial court’s order granting the motions of Pruitte and Neal to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence, the People filed a certificate of impairment and notice of appeal. On appeal, they argued the warrant-reviewing judge erred in granting the motions.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did the Officer’s complaint for a search warrant provide probable cause to support the issuance of that warrant? (No).

FINDING:   The appellate court ruled that the reviewing judge did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. WHY: The complaint for the warrant was insufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that evidence of unlawful possession or delivery of a controlled substance was at the described location and the complaint was so deficient that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply.

      4.   People v. Maurice Sanders, 2019 IL APP (1st) 160718, (1st Dist., June 20, 2019) Possession of a Controlled Substance - - Affirmed; Case Remanded

FACTS:   After a bench trial, Sanders was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, namely, heroin, and sentenced to five years with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).  On this appeal, he claimed that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion for disclosure of the exact surveillance location of the officer who observed him during the offense. He also challenges the imposition of various fines and fees.

ISSUE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Surveillance Location): Did the trial court err in denying this defendant’s motion require the People to reveal the location of the police surveillance in this case?  (No).

FINDING #1:   State satisfied its initial burden of demonstrating that surveillance location privilege applied in prosecution for possession of a controlled substance, by presenting testimony of officer establishing the need for an elevated and undisclosed vantage point from which to observe a known drug-trafficking area. WHY: The officer testified that the particular city block where the surveillance took place contained multiple vacant buildings and that the police were watching the area because it was a known drug-trafficking area, with drug sales regularly occurringFINDING #2:   The People were entitled to qualified privilege regarding disclosure of the surveillance officer's exact surveillance location in this drug prosecution, and thus the defendant's right to confront witnesses was not violated. WHY: The defendant received a great deal of information regarding the surveillance location from the officer's trial testimony, including the fact that the officer used binoculars to aid his vision; that the building in question was about 75 feet away, and that his vantage point was elevated; the defendant did not specify what additional facts about the location he needed to know, but did not have; and defense counsel was allowed considerable time and latitude in cross-examining officer to establish relevant facts.

       

      5.   People v. Taryll Musgrave, 2019 IL APP (4th) 170106, (4th Dist., June 10, 2019) Unlawful Possess of a Controlled Substance - - Affirmed

FACTS:   Musgrave was pulled over by the police while driving. During the traffic stop, Musgrave consented to being searched. Later that month, the People charged him with (count I) unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and (count II) unlawful possession of a controlled substance. 720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A), 402(a)(2)(A). Musgrave filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search conducted during the traffic stop. The trial court denied this motion.  The People and the defense counsel presented the trial court with a proposed plea agreement in which Musgrave would plead guilty and be sentenced to 13 years in prison. Musgrave rejected this agreement in open court and elected to proceed to trial.  The People dismissed count I and the parties proceeded to a stipulated bench trial on count II. The trial court found Musgrave guilty of count II (unlawful possession of a controlled substance) and sentenced defendant to 16 years in prison.  Musgrave appealed, arguing (1) the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because the police prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of the stop, (2) the trial court's sentence was an abuse of discretion, and (3) the trial court imposed “a trial tax.”

ISSUE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Prolonged Stop): Did the trial court err in denying this defendant’s motion to suppress after the defendant had argued that the People had illegally prolonged his traffic stop?  (No).

FINDING:   These police officers did not prolong this traffic stop beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of the stop, in this prosecution for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. WHY: The officer who stopped the defendant was working on paperwork related to the traffic stop while another officer questioned and searched the defendant; the record contained no evidence to suggest that the officer who stopped the defendant delayed or otherwise hindered his efforts so that the other officers could investigate matters unrelated to traffic stop; and the search was conducted within the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the initial traffic stop. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 570/402(a)(2)(A).

    

      6.   People v. Mark Cassino, 2019 IL App (1st) 181510, (1st Dist., June 7, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and Remanded.  

FACTSThe People sought reversal of the order of the trial court granting Cassino's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Extended Duration):  Did the police err in investigating the defendant’s car rental agreement during this traffic stop? (Yes).

FINDING:   This state trooper violated the motorist's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure by extending the traffic stop by approximately 25 minutes in order to call a rental-car company to ask whether the motorist was an authorized driver under the rental agreement. WHY: The trooper, who had stopped the motorist for speeding, had already checked the validity of the motorist's license and would otherwise have completed the stop in under a minute had he not elected to make additional inquiry to the rental-car company, and, further, the trooper neither suspected that the vehicle had been stolen nor had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by the motorist beyond the speeding violation.

 

      7.   People v. Markeese Thomas, 2019 IL App (1st) 170474, (1st Dist., March 19, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and Remanded.   MODIFIED UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING – May 14, 2019.

FACTSThomas was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) after the police observed him, while in the common area of an unlocked multiunit apartment building, hand off a gun to his friend and then flee upstairs into an apartment unit. Thomas filed a motion to quash his arrest and to suppress the evidence, which the circuit court granted. The People appealed, arguing that there was no Fourth amendment violation since defendant was not a resident of the apartment unit into which he fled and since the offense occurred in the common area of the building. The State further argues police had probable cause for the arrest even without knowing that defendant lacked licenses under both the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/0.01 et seq.) and the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (Concealed Carry Act) (430 ILCS 66/1 et seq.) and, regardless, defendant had abandoned the weapon before his arrest, thus precluding application of the exclusionary rule.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did the police err in placing this defendant under arrest after they saw him possessing a firearm in an apartment building? (No).

FINDING #1:   There was no real encounter between the police officers and the defendant when the officers, in a police vehicle, initially approached the defendant and his cohort loitering on sidewalk, the defendant looked directly at the officers, and he and his confederate fled into an apartment building and closed door, and thus there was no Fourth Amendment stop or seizure. WHY: The defendant and his confederate had already entered the building before the officers announced their office and chased the two menFINDING #2:   No Fourth Amendment search was implicated by the police officer's warrantless entry into a common area of this unlocked apartment building after the defendant and his confederate fled into the building upon seeing the police vehicle. WHY: The officer entered the building at a reasonable hour, the defendant did not present any evidence that the unlocked building was customarily locked or had a “no trespass” sign posted outside such that he might have an expectation of privacy there; and the officer remained in common area of buildingFINDING #3:   The Police officer had probable cause to believe that criminal activity was afoot when he arrested the defendant without a warrant. WHY: The officer witnessed the defendant fleeing from him into a nearby apartment building upon seeing the officer's police vehicle; then witnessed the defendant handing a firearm to his confederate and fleeing upstairs upon seeing officer in common area of building, suggesting the defendant did not have lawful possession of the firearm, and the officer had made multiple arrests for narcotics, gangs, and drugs in the neighborhood and was patrolling due to activities of rival gangs at the time of the incident. FINDING #4:   The defendant had abandoned the firearm prior to its warrantless seizure by the police officer, thus the firearm was not subject to protection under Fourth Amendment. WHY: The defendant physically relinquished the firearm to his confederate, while knowing the police were in hot pursuit, then shut the confederate out of his purported apartment unit, exhibiting that the defendant did not wish to be caught in possession of the firearm, and the confederate then discarded the firearm in a common area of apartment building where anyone could have retrieved itFINDING #5:   The defendant's actions of fleeing into the apartment building upon seeing a police vehicle, then handing the firearm to his confederate and again fleeing up the stairs upon seeing a police officer enter the building's common area, provided the officer with probable cause to believe he was committing a felony in the officer's presence, and thus the officer rightfully followed the defendant into his alleged apartment unit to make warrantless arrest, even assuming the apartment unit was the defendant's and his purported girlfriend did not lawfully consent to police entering.  FINDING #6:   There was insufficient evidence that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment unit in which he was arrested to afford him Fourth Amendment protections in it. WHY: Although the evidence established the defendant's presence in and access to the apartment unit, it did not establish whether the apartment unit was locked before he entered, how often he was in the apartment, whether he planned to stay there for more than a brief period of time, or whether he kept any possessions there.

 

      8.   People v. Benjamin C. Bailey, 2019 IL App (3rd) 180396, (3rd Dist., May 6, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Affirmed.  

FACTSBailey was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and the trial court granted his motion to suppress evidence.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did the Officer have probable cause to arrest this defendant by taking the keys from his car and unlocking the car doors? (No).

FINDING #1:   The People forfeited any argument concerning whether the officer taking the defendant's keys from him constituted an arrest or if he had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time he took the defendant's keys. WHY:  The People offered no argument and did not cite to any authority to support any argumentFINDING #2:   The Officer taking the defendant's keys amounted to an arrest without a warrant requiring probable cause to believe that he committed a crime. WHY: The officer used the keys to unlock defendant's vehicle so that he could conduct a search rather than taking the keys to prevent defendant from speeding awayFINDING #3:   The Officers did not have probable cause to search the defendant's vehicle without a warrant for evidence of driving with an open container of alcohol, although the officer saw a can of an alcoholic drink on the backseat floor of the defendant's vehicle along with other opened cans, defendant had food remnants in defendant's beard, and defendant used sunglasses and gum. WHY: The alcoholic drink can that the officer saw was closed; the officer could not see if the other opened cans were alcoholic or whether they were empty; and the officers did not smell any alcohol on the defendant prior to his use of gum or notice any bloodshot eyes prior to his use of sunglasses. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11-502(a).

      9.   People v. James R. Lambert, 2019 IL App (5th) 180248, (5th Dist., May 2, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and Remanded.  

FACTSLambert was involved in an automobile collision on the Brookport Bridge, which spans the Ohio River between Massac County, Illinois, and McCracken County, Kentucky. He was initially charged in McCracken County with offenses stemming from the incident, but the charges were later dismissed on the grounds that the accident had actually occurred in Illinois. After Lambert was subsequently charged with similar offenses in Massac County, he filed a motion to suppress evidence that had been obtained by the McCracken County sheriff's department. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order partially granting his motion to suppress. The People appealed

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Good Faith):  Did Officers from Kentucky act in good faith when they made a stop in Illinois? (Yes).

FINDING:   The Officers who responded to an automobile collision, that occurred on a bridge between Illinois and Kentucky, acted with an objectively good-faith belief that the accident had occurred in Kentucky's jurisdiction, and that their conduct was lawful when making an extraterritorial arrest, and thus the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, although the defendant argued that a well-trained officer would know where the boundary was located. WHY: There had been an agreement between Illinois and Kentucky providing that Kentucky would police bridge; the officer indicated that they had been dispatched to the Illinois side of the bridge to work numerous collisions in that curve; and the officers were dispatched to the bridge and had no choice but to comply, and now that there were signs marking the boundary, reoccurrence was unlikely.

      10.    People v. Jeremiah Paige Rice, 2019 IL App (3rd) 170134, (3rd Dist., April 16, 2019) Denial of a Motion to Suppress - - Affirmed.  

FACTSFollowing a traffic stop, Rice was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 646/60(b)(4) (methamphetamine possession)). He filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, which the trial court denied. After a stipulated bench trial, the circuit court found him guilty and sentenced him to 11 years in prison. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that, under the recent amendment to the Cannabis Control Act (Act) (720 ILCS 550/4), the odor of burnt cannabis alone is insufficient to expand the scope of a traffic stop into a drug investigation.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Reasonable Suspicion):  Was the odor of burnt cannabis sufficient to turn this traffic stop into a drug investigation? (Yes).

FINDING #1:   Officer had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle for speeding. WHY: The officer observed vehicle traveling a roadway in excess of posted speed limitFINDING #2:   The odor of cannabis being indicative of criminal activity for purposes of justifying a warrantless search during a Terry stop remains viable notwithstanding the recent decriminalization of the possession of not more than 10 grams of marijuana. WHY: Decriminalization is not synonymous with legalization.

      11.    People v. Bob Williams, 2019 IL App (3rd) 160132, (3rd Dist., April 11, 2019) DUI - - Affirmed.  

FACTSWilliams was arrested and charged with driving under the influence after he crashed his vehicle into a guardrail and left the accident scene. Following his conviction, he appealed, alleging the police were without jurisdiction to arrest him.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Jurisdiction):  Did the Police in this case have the jurisdiction to arrest Williams for DUI? (Yes).

FINDING #1:   The Officers were not personally aware that the defendant immediately committed any offense, as required by the statute allowing for arrests by peace officer from other jurisdictions. WHY: The awareness of a crime came via a witness rather than firsthand; the officers did not see anyone leaving the vehicle or near the vehicle that had crashed into the guardrail; and when the officers found the defendant he was one-half mile down the road when found, negating any observation of the defendant immediately committing an offense. 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/107-4(a-3) (1), (2).  FINDING #2:   The car accident site was located within the city limits of the officers' jurisdiction, and therefore no extraterritorial arrest occurred when officers arrested defendant as he walked alongside the road. WHY: The annexation ordinance established the location of the defendant's accident as within the city limits of the officer.

      12.    People v. John R. Brandt Jr., 2019 IL App (4th) 180219, (4th Dist., April 2, 2019) Suppression of Evidence - - Reversed and Remanded.  

FACTSThe People charged Brandt with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and unlawful possession with intent to deliver cannabis. He filed a motion seeking to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a search warrant on his home, arguing probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the warrant. After a hearing, the Jersey County circuit court granted Brandt's motion. The People appealed, arguing the court's decision was in error.

ISSUESEARCH AND SEIZURE (Probable Cause):  Did probable cause justify the issuance of a search warrant for the defendant’s home? (Yes).

FINDING #1:   This Officer plainly detected the odor of cannabis in a place where she had lawful right to be when she parked her vehicle in a graveled area next to an open window of the defendant's home with a fan blowing out, and therefore no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. WHY: In order to talk with the defendant, who was outside his home and near the driveway when the officers arrived, the officers had to park and exit their vehicle; the area where the officer parked appeared to be a driveway; and upon exiting her vehicle, the officer detected odor of cannabisFINDING #2:   A police officer is not a special instrument designed to sense what a human being cannot, and thus placing a trained drug task force officer near an open window of a home when the possession and sale of cannabis is suspected is not akin to bringing a drug dog on a person's front porch or on a third-floor landing outside an apartment door within a locked apartment building.  FINDING #3:   When an officer enters into the curtilage of a home for the lawful purpose of conducting a “knock and talk” and his or her movements are restricted to places visitors could be expected to go, a search does not occur when that officer observes what is in plain view or detects what is in plain smell.

 

For a complete analysis of recent Search and Seizure Law Quarterly see our CRIMINAL JUSTICE CASE DIGEST at:  www.illinoisprosecutorservices.com

 


 

Illinois Prosecutor Services, LLC

Don Hays

PO Box 722

Carlinville, Illinois 62626

Office Phone: (217) 854-8041    Fax: (217) 854-5343

Webpage: www.ipsllconline.com

Email: don.ipsllc@gmail.com 


 

The Illinois Prosecutor Services, LLC now offers Criminal Justice publication on our website. You can find it at www.ipsllconline.com.

Included on this Website is the following Publications:

• Law Enforcement Officers Training Case of the Week (Weekly)

• Recently Published Criminal Justice Opinions (Monthly)

• Criminal Case Law Digest (Monthly)

• Confessions and Admissions (Quarterly)

• Criminal Case Law (Quarterly)

• Criminal Justice Publication Digest (Quarterly)

• Chapter 720 - Criminal Offenses - As Of 1-1-15 (Quarterly)

• Criminal Trial Procedure and Sentencing (Quarterly)

• Evidence Case Law (Quarterly)

• Juvenile Justice Case Law (Quarterly)

• Law Enforcement Liability (Quarterly)

• Post-Conviction Petition Case Law (Quarterly)

• Search and Seizure (Quarterly)

• Sex Offenses and Offender (Quarterly)

• Unlawful Substances Case Law (Quarterly)

• Vehicle Code Case Law (Quarterly)

• Legislative Update (Annually)

NOTE: The single subscription fee is $100.00 per subscriber. (If your office has a number of subscribers (more than 5) who would like access to our Site, please contact our office for group rate quote). Each subscriber will have his or her own User ID/Name and Password.

NOTE: All subscribers to our Website will automatically begin receiving Weekly Criminal Justice Publication via E-Mail at no extra charge.

Accompanying this letter is a subscription form. If you would like to become a member to the Illinois Prosecutor Services website, just fill out the form and email, fax or mail it back to us and we will bill you.  Illinois Prosecutor Services Website goal is Keeping the Criminal Justice System Up-To-Date. We believe it to be a valuable asset that can be used to assist you in your law enforcement duties. We look forward to working with you in the future.

Thank you for your support,

Don Hays

 


 

 

ILLINOIS PROSECUTOR SERVICES

Website Yearly Subscription Form

 

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

 

Name: __________________________________________________________

 

Agency: __________________________________________________________

 

Business Address: __________________________________________________________

 

Position: __________________________________________________________

 

Phone: __________________________________________________________

 

E-Mail Address: __________________________________________________________

 

Product Cost:

 

Website Access: $100.00 X _____ (# of Subscribers)           $ ________

(Call me if your agency has 6 or more subscribers sign up, you can qualify for a group rate)

 

X _______   I AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. (They are found on our Website)

     (Check)

 

(Fee Payment – Check One):

____ Check Enclosed (Please make check payable to: Illinois Prosecutor Services, LLC.)

____ Please bill me via Mail.

____ Please bill me via E-Mail.

____ Payment via Credit Card.

*****************

 

RETURN BY FAX, MAIL or E-Mail TO:

ILLINOIS PROSECUTOR SERVICES, LLC,

P. O. Box 722, Carlinville, IL 62626

Phone: (217) 854-8041 Fax: (217) 854-5343   

E-Mail:don@ipsllconline.com

 


Posted In: Bulletins,
back to News